Posted on 07/06/2008 9:10:48 AM PDT by Signalman
Like many Californians, I was a little surprised to see Republican presidential candidate John McCain campaigning in Santa Barbara the week before last touting his new plan for energy independence — the centerpiece of which focuses on new offshore drilling. As someone who lives in and represents Santa Barbara and witnessed the horrible economic and environmental consequences of the huge 1969 oil spill, I know I have a certain bias against new offshore drilling. But, even so, it seems obvious that President Bush's drilling-heavy energy policy, now being embraced by Sen. McCain, is, in no small part, responsible for today's gas prices of well over $4 per gallon. But the call for more drilling as a solution hits a few dry holes.
First, even if we wanted to, we simply can't drill our way to "energy independence." The U.S. has less than 3 percent of world oil supplies, yet, we make up nearly 25 percent of world demand. More drilling off our coasts (and in Alaska, for that matter) isn't going to change those numbers, so no one should believe arguments that more drilling in these pristine areas means we stop relying on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or Russia. More drilling won't end our addiction to oil — it just enables it.
Second, most people probably don't know that 80 percent of the oil and gas resources off our coasts are already available for leasing and drilling. While large swaths of our coasts are off limits to new drilling, the areas where most oil and gas are located are not. Listening to Sen. McCain and others, you'd think we've been locking up all our resources — the opposite is true.
Third, we are drilling more domestically than we have in years. Following Vice President Dick Cheney's ridiculous view that conservation is merely a "personal virtue," the Bush administration's energy policy has basically been to drill for more resources. It has leased public lands for drilling throughout the west, the Gulf Coast and elsewhere at a record pace over the last seven-and-a-half years. In fact, right now, the oil and gas industry has leased nearly 70 million acres of public lands where they aren't drilling. It also has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being drilled in. According to Sen. McCain and President Bush, the oil and gas industry wants to lower prices for American consumers, but they can't because they're prevented from drilling. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Fourth, even Sen. McCain and the Bush administration's own Energy Department admit that opening up our coasts would have no effect on today's gas prices and little on tomorrow's. The best estimate is that it would take 10 years for the product to come on line and then maybe it would affect prices by a few cents. Sen. McCain's latest hope is that opening our coasts will provide a "psychological" benefit to lower gas prices. That's hardly encouraging.
So, we're drilling domestically more than ever, the oil industry already has access to most offshore resources, the industry is not drilling in millions of acres of public land that it has leased and, even if it did, it wouldn't lower prices and it wouldn't really have any effect on our reliance on foreign oil. Like McCain's previous proposal for a gas-tax holiday, his new embrace of offshore drilling is just another political gimmick rather than a responsible solution for meeting our nation's energy needs.
The latest Bush-McCain push for more offshore drilling is just more of the same failed approach that brought us $4-a-gallon gas and has actually increased our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It means more drilling in environmentally sensitive places, more profits for big oil and more pain at the pump for American consumers. And while it's a sweet deal for the Bush-McCain buddies in the big oil industry, it won't lower gas prices or make us more energy independent. At the end of the day, Sen. McCain's "new" plan will have a devastating effect on California's economy, environment and its health.
With the right leadership, this could be an opportunity for us to move forward in a new direction on energy policy that embraces alternative energy sources and pushes enhanced energy efficiency. Unfortunately, President Bush and Sen. McCain appear content to push the same tired combination of old ideas and political gimmicks.
forgot to </i> on the quote.
Their is price on the head of each of these Rat Libs. It is the price of gas when their voters will turn on them and vote for someone who will drill Santa Barbara..and fast.
Even if the price of oil doesn’t go down due to domestic supply..our economy will go up with the additional revenue staying at home. Maybe the state revenue share might even close some of the CA deficit.
“The U.S. has less than 3 percent of world oil supplies, yet, we make up nearly 25 percent of world demand..”
This oft repeated factoid needs refutation. This is the women make 69 cents for every dollar a man makes version of energy debate. The 69 cent thing is a lie too.
Lois Capps is an “anchor politician”, she never should have been allowed to take over her late husbands seat.
Drill here. Drill now.
“As someone who lives in and represents Santa Barbara and witnessed the horrible economic and environmental consequences of the huge 1969 oil spill, I know I have a certain bias against new offshore drilling.”
A certain “bias”, Lois?! I’d call it a debilitating neurosis. That spill occurred 40 years ago. The environment got over it. It’s past time you did likewise.
That won't get it done either. Alternative energy is very expensive and nothing in the alternative energy spectrum appears able to meet the energy needs we have now. Maybe nuclear.
Yeah, something has to be done about that rule. I live in Illinois but I remember the whole Carnahan (sp.) situation.
Bull crap. If we never start we will never know.
It’s a canard to say we cannot drill our way to energy independence. No one is suggesting that - we’re just suggesting that it can get us to $2.50 a gallon of less or the long run.
The US doesn’t need to “drill itself to energy independence” - the country merely needs to increase it’s increase it’s self-sufficiency to the point that foreign entities have little leverage over our overall economy. And drilling for oil is a significant piece of that strategy.
The oil is there, it's in our territory and territorial waters. We need it. Ecotards (in symbiotic relationship with the moronic, self-serving political class) are obstructing the nation's use of this natural resource. That is utterly heinous.
It could. It probably wouldn’t have any price lowering effect. We’re looking at augmenting world production, which is 85 million bpd by 2-3 million bpd.
A 1969 offshore oil worker flat wouldn't recognise the industry today; it's changed that much.
Very true. The U.S. cannot drill its way to energy independence BECAUSE THE LIBERALS WON'T LET US!
Another way to use weasel words to distort the picture. The correct measure is "proven reserves" not "supplies", which raises the numbers to about 40%. If you increase exploration, this number would rise even further. Also, that 40% figure is based upon a market price of about $50/barrel. With higher prices, more expensive extraction methods become possible, perhaps doubling the figure.
2) most people probably don't know that 80 percent of the oil and gas resources off our coasts are already available for leasing and drilling.
Another fake out. Those leases have already been explored and are not productive. Also, some of those lands were leased to provide right-of-way for undersea pipelines and were never leased to produce oil. It is the unexplored lands near currently-active wells that hold the most promise, but the gov't won't release.
3) ...we are drilling more domestically than we have in years...right now, the oil and gas industry has leased nearly 70 million acres of public lands where they aren't drilling.
See #2. Note the cute word "drilling". The reason is because those acres have been "explored" and no oil was found. The more relevant measure is the number of acres that have not been "explored". Why drill when exploration shows no oil? Perhaps the federal gov't would be willing to give those companies a refund since they produce no oil.
4) ...opening up our coasts would have no effect on today's gas prices and little on tomorrow's.
BS. Put your money where your mouth is. Open up ANWR, OCS, and all federal lands to exploration and just see what happens to the spot price of oil. Speculators would see the handwriting writing on the wall and adjust accordingly. So, call my bluff...make the announcement and follow through with polices that open these areas up and let's see what happens to price. Whatever happens, I'll be it's a damn-sight better than what Congress currently is doing...which is nothing but trying to place the blame for their ineptitude anywhere (e.g., oil exec-cs, speculators, etc.) but where it belongs: In their lap.
I think what he means by this is they strangled our oil supply down to 3%. If we drill we can be the largest supplier of oil in the world which drives them crazy. Help send a lib over the edge, Drill for oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.